No... It's a toss-up between Romania and America as to who won the First World War
..Germany, Austria and Italy are standing together in the middle of a pub when Serbia bumps into Austria and spills Austria's pint. Austria demands Serbia buy it a complete new suit because there are splashes on its trouser leg. Germany expresses its support for Austria's point of view. Britain recommends that everyone calm down a bit.
..
Serbia points out that it can't afford a whole suit, but offers to pay for the cleaning of Austria's trousers. Russia and Serbia look at Austria. Austria asks Serbia who it's looking at. Russia suggests that Austria should leave its little brother alone. Austria inquires as to whose army will assist Russia in compelling it to do so. Germany appeals to Britain that France has been looking at it, and that this is sufficiently out of order that Britain should not intervene. Britain replies that France can look at who it wants to, that Britain is looking at Germany too, and what is Germany going to do about it?
..
Germany tells Russia to stop looking at Austria, or Germany will render Russia incapable of such action. Britain and France ask Germany whether it's looking at Belgium. Turkey makes a show of not looking at anyone. Romania takes a leak. Germany rolls up its sleeves, looks at France, and punches Belgium. France and Britain punch Germany. Austria punches Russia. Germany punches Britain and France with one hand and Russia with the other. Russia throws a punch at Germany, but misses and nearly falls over. Japan calls over from the other side of the room that it's on Britain's side. Italy punches its old drinking buddy Austria.
..
Turkey punches Russia, and gets punched back by Australia. There are no hard feelings because Britain made Australia do it. France gets thrown through a plate glass window, but gets back up and carries on fighting. Russia gets thrown through another one, gets knocked out, suffers brain damage, and wakes up with a complete personality change. Romania takes another leak.
..
America waits till Germany is about to fall over from sustained punching from Britain and France, then swings a barstool at Germany, which misses, but Germany falls over anyway. America raises both fists in the air, and dances around the room pretending it won the fight all by itself.
..
By now all the chairs are broken and the big mirror over the bar is shattered. Britain, France and America agree that Germany threw the first punch, so the whole thing is Germany's fault. While Germany is still unconscious, Britain and France go through its pockets, steal its wallet, and buy drinks for all their friends. America disapproves but takes the drinks anyway. Romania takes more than its share. Italy and Japan feel they don't get enough drinks, and take umbrage. Germany recovers, and Britain and France are left to face it alone.
..
Found in a public convenience... Or an Economist blog... Not much difference

The most significant scar of WW1 was the Great Depression, which led pretty directly to WW2. (Perhaps this period was out of the scope of this article, but I should mention it anyway.)

The flooding of money and debt during WW1 made it clear that the (British-dominated) classical gold standard that had underpinned the world for a century was no longer viable. (This was not really due to the war alone, as Britain especially had created too much paper currency cumulatively over the 19th century, but the war both exacerbated the financial pollution and provided a great target for the authorities to blame for this pollution.)

During the interwar period, countries paid lip service to gold standard but really developed a kind of dollar standard. This reduced the restraint on governments to create money and debt. The new flood of financial assets (mostly money and credit) drove the equity and debt bubbles that burst between 1929 and 1931 and unleashed the Great Depression.

The interwar financial and monetary arrangements and events made sure that Germany suffered the worst of the Depression. It was against this backdrop (not the 1923 hyperinflation) that Hitler finally took power.

Essentially, like today's "emerging markets", Germany had no power to created hard currency, but was constantly subject to large capital flows in and out. The resulting instability and pain bred political instability.

There are clear parallels with today's world. Central banks have been transitioning from inflation-targeting to inflation-and-employment-targeting, and developing countries have been pegging their currencies and releasing a lot of liquidity onto the world. All this means increased financial pollution. We have already had a big financial bust. And conflicts and dangerous politicians are running amok.

The First World War was a major landmark in the descent of human civilization.

What made the war possible was the ability of governments to raise large debts, if necessary, to finance it. The then gold standard did impose some constraint on this, but gold convertibility was suspended as soon as war started. Plus, countries with large debts could achieve balance by devaluing their currencies against gold after the war, and blame it on the war (as France did and Britain probably should have.)

Couple this with the plausible idea that the war was due in large part to over-creation of paper sterling to start with (the idea that Britain entered the war for fear that a German victory and a German dominated Europe would cause confidence in the already over-created sterling to collapse and doom Britain to decades of painful adjustment), and you have a good example of how monetary creation lies at the root of civilizational degeneration.

At heart, the idea that one can create a claim to wealth (money) without creating real wealth is fatally flawed.

"Couple this with the plausible idea that the war was due in large part to over-creation of paper sterling to start with "
`
However, war was already underway before Britain formally got involved.
`
The war was due to conflict between Austria-Hungary and Serbia,
with Russia not wanting to be embarrassed by having a client state pushed around (like in 1908), and Germany not wanting its keystone ally getting pushed around by Russia.
`
I don't think economics came up much in the detailed discussions and exchanges going on in Germany, Austria and Russia, aside from maybe Austria hoping to make Serbia dependent on it (like past attempts), and Russia wanting to make dang sure it could improve security of supply chains for its grain exports.

True, the war had started a few days (a hundred years before yesterday?) before Britain entered it, but the likelihood of British involvement probably encouraged France and Russia the enter the war in the first place.

Without British involvement, the war would likely have ended in a quick German victory. And I still think there's a high likelihood that Britain's real motivation was confidence in sterling (even though the official reason was to protect Belgium's neutrality.)

The British contribution was rather modest, although they put on a good show at Mons.
`
What saved the French was a poor German plan, the usual disorganization that sets in with an invading army walking that kind of distance, and unusual skill and energy on their part at a late moment in the game, in redeploying military forces from Lorraine to the Marne (and mobilizing more reservists).
`
The BEF was like only 100,000 British Soldiers (page 244 of "The Marne 1914" not wikipedia), in comparison to 980,000 Frenchmen deployed at the onset of battle.
`
Now 100,000 is nice to have, nothing to sneeze at, but the nearby French 6th Army alone consisted of 150,000 men at that time (page 227 or "The Marne 1914").
`
Considering Germany had to engage in a long siege of Paris in 1870, after beating France's armies hands down (Sedan notably), I don't think they would have had an easy time with the French alone in the Fall of 1914, with overextended supply lines and intact French armies in the field, deployed properly (as one German general asked: Where are the prisoners?).

Although, it must be said, Britain probably could have deployed more troops if necessary. Its navy probably played a big role in protecting supplies going to France. As it happened, it did enough, if not to beat Germany outright, at least to hold the line before the Americans arrived.

Also, as in any war, the psychological factor is incalculable. Having Britain on your side alone was probably a big advantage for the French and Russians.

It certainly helped to have the British as the war extended into 1915. Would have been difficult for France to sustain battles in 1916 like Verdun alone on the western front.
`
But the first four months were largely a French show that I think they recovered largely on its own.
`
As for the British, their army was relatively small, like at 532,000 strength (if Paul Kennedy's figures are correct). They had reserves but no conscription or real method for nationwide mobilization (strong volunteerism saved them there).
`
Ramping up reserves and moving them onto the continent, properly provisioned and positioned, would take time.
`
So would movement of say troops deployed abroad or the Indian army.
`
So they could add troops over the Fall, but time to deploy would gate impact on the front.

The map shows that Russia became the Soviet Union in 1922; it should also reflect the formation of the Irish Free State in the same year. Many of the same tensions that ripped the fabric of central Europe apart were present in Ireland.

The reason for WWII is bad decisions taken post 1918, and very good decisions post 1945. If the Marshall Plan, NATO and most of all the EU had been instituted post 1918, rather than Versailles, St. Germain, etc., then Hitler would never have come to power.
Just look at the situation in East and Southeast Asia to see what the lack of integration and real plans does for trust among ex-enemies

The bad decisions to punish and not help Germany was due to the financial and economic weaknesses of all countries involved after the war. (Even the US needed a short period of adjustment.) This drove the victors to try to extract as much out of Germany and Austria as they could.

Another big factor was that WW1 made it clear that the classical gold standard was no longer sustainable (because too much money and debt had been created.) The world system evolved into a de-facto dollar standard in the interwar years. This reduced constraints on money and debt creation across the world, and the resulting equity and credit bubbles and their bursting created the Great Depression.

It was the pain of the Great Depression that gave rise to Nazi Germany and militarist Japan.

Well, lets remember that the Belgians were forced to fork over quite a bit of resources to the Germans over the duration of the war, as well as incurred damage that most would say deserved compensation (like flaming the Library at Lovain).
`
And, the Germans engaged in scorch earth policies when pulling back to the Hindenberg line. I would also have to assume the Germans were extracting value from French industries on the frontier that fell into their possession.
`
And there was a time when Germans sank ships in contravention of the laws of war.
`
So, compensation for what was done beyond the pale of the laws of war in Belgium, France and the high seas, as well as for extraction of resources during the conflict should have been legitimate, and scoped out for an indemnity or reparations.
`
And then some adjustment for ability to pay should have been made to reward the socialists for reaching a peace (maybe also take into account the return of Alsace Lorraine?)...
`
You seem to overlook the fact that the Gold standard was still relatively new. Germany only joined it in 1871 (43 years prior to WWI; and after getting a heavy indemnity paid in gold).
`
France went on the pure gold standard in 1876 (maybe give time to pay that indemnity, and get over the depression at the time?); Austria joined in 1879, and Russia in 1893 (just 21 years prior to WWI).

Certainly, I would never be on the side of Germany during this history. Objectively speaking though, when countries subjected Germany to such heavy punishment after WW1, they shouldn't be surprised to see problems brewing.

The important piece of gold standard history here is that sterling became the solidly trusted currency around the world at the end of the Napoleonic wars (about 100 years prior to WW1.) This was because Britain somehow decided to defend the sterling price of gold by enduring quite a bit of austerity and deflationary pain circa 1815.

In the following century the amount of paper sterling ballooned as global reserves and private savings, with the encouragement of the British elite. Britain lived a nice life, but the cumulative financial imbalance doomed Britain to eventual decline one way or another (hint, hint for the next country!)

Judging from the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, which made Versailles look like a get of of jail free card, I am not so certain about point.

Especially considering the annexationists claims put forth by more radical parties in Germany as the war kept extending over a number of years.

And I would take imperfect parliamentary democracies over one that was certainly troubled, with inordinate military dominance on policy by the likes of Hindenburg and Ludendorff (on a monarchy that vastly distorted the country's political system with the lack of accountability and unique arrangement of Prussia that it had no intention of reforming).

Britain was already in the process of agreeing to the concept of home rule, however tumultuously.
`
Like May of 1914 Parliament had passed the third home rule act. Something was agreed by the end of 1914 but not implemented. Not bad considering bills were passed in the past but shot down by the House of Lords.
`
Some say there was a threat of civil war in the 1913-1914 timeframe, until WWI united the country.
`
That being said, I think some sort of partition between a north and south would have occurred due to polarization of the respective catholic and protestant communities. The latter had armed themselves I believe (possibly up to 300,000 in various militias/organizations).
`
So something would have happened. How cleanly and peacefully would have been a big question.

Never understood the fight for Kenya, but Malaya was valuable - thought it was known as the dollar economy because of the receipts from tin and rubber.
`
Good book that delves on the war in Malaya is "Forgotten Wars: The End Of Britain's Asian Empire" - a companion piece to "Forgotten Armies"
`
So, think the British had to repress a Chinese-community centered communist uprising, even after it became clear they would have to give independence to Malaysia.

The chart on Debt and Germany doesn't sound right.
`
Unless the Kaiser's government really did just turn up the printing press, without borrowing during the war…
`
I know they didn't raise taxes sufficiently, and pursued an inflationary set of policies to sustain the war effort (so what happened with the Weimar Republic didn't take place in a vacuum, although it got all the blame, just like with suing for peace with the Allies)

Dear Mr. Dunne,
You remarked that "The chart on Debt and Germany doesn't sound right."
Who would lend to Germany after the commencement of hostilities? All contracts and debts became suspended for the duration of war between belligerents. The dual monarchy was in no position to lend - quite the opposite actually with Germany providing Austria-Hungary substantial wartime assistance in men and materiel. The main centres of finance in the Entente were locked off and who in Switzerland would be willing to buy risky German debt? Who else do you propose could lend for a German war fund or even trade with Germany? The United States actively supplied munitions to the opposing side and had a vested interest in seeing the outcome turned in the Entente's favour. In fact, Germany treated the United States as a belligerent early on, sinking U.S. flagged merchant vessels. An entente naval blockade further reduced the opportunities for foreign trade - and accordingly the accumulation of debt from importation.
Given how cut off from the world Germany became, it's really not too terrible a surprise that German debt decreased. By the middle of the war, imports grounded to a grasping halt and the population became malnourished. So short on raw materials, Germany even had to substitute rubber with rat hide.
As you can see, Germany had no choice but to pursue a policy of autarky as a matter of circumstance.
Sincerely,
The Opportunist

Mobilize capital domestically, with war bond drives maybe.
`
Like they did in the US in 1917 and 1918.
`
Or force "forced loans" from occupied countries, like Belgium and Russian Poland.
`
Then there may have been sources from lenders willing to take on more risk, like the Netherlands or Switzerland.

Dear Mr. Dunne,
While I am willing to accept that war bonds were bought domestically (see Kriegsanleihe), I find it hard to believe that the (relatively) tiny economies of Belgium, Russian Poland, Netherlands, or Switzerland, could support a binge of war spending (although I agree that there were individual buyers of debt within these markets). In any event, the graph on page 5 of this article (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/geer.12031/pdf) demonstrates that the outbreak of World War I coincided with a dramatic drop in German public debt. I would maintain that for Germany it was the loss of access to major financial markets that precipitated this result.
What is more important is the effect of the embargo on war spending. Even if Germany and Austria-Hungary had had access to the international financial markets, they could not physically import or purchase all of the items they needed to survive due to the naval blockade. Industrial production plummeted due to mass conscription, as did the harvest of agricultural goods. The Netherlands, Switzerland, and other blockaded countries also suffered from a fall in industrial production as conscripted troops left their jobs to protect borders and ensure neutrality.
In turn, this meant that there were fewer suppliers to meet demand for war materiel. Whereas the Entente had access to the world market for arms, raw materials, and agricultural goods, Germany could only trade with neutral countries on its immediate borders. Even then, the Entente blockaded neutral countries too, limiting their ability to export goods. For instance, the Netherlands and Switzerland were only permitted to import enough goods to satisfy their domestic consumption needs, as the British implemented a quota system controlling how much could be brought in. To please the British, neutral countries also monitored incoming shipments to ensure that their final destination was domestic and that the contents were not contraband. (See NOT,the Netherlands’ Overseas Trust Company). Even though foodstuff entered Germany through smuggling rings on many occasions, there were fewer opportunities for importation of raw materials, munitions, or arms because of the imposition of the blockade policy on neutral countries.
The upshot was that Germany had nearly exhausted all domestic supplies domestically leading to a system of rationing that would limit demand, while the Entente drew on abundant foreign markets to meet its war demands, requiring greater resort to the public debt markets (which were open). Both of these factors would explain the difference in public debt shown in the graph of the article.
Sincerely,
The Opportunist

If DK's "World War I" is correct (the chart on page 123), the Germany borrowed quite a bit.
`
As in a little more than $1 billion in 1914, a little shy of $6 billion in 1915, a little north of $6 billion in 1916, almost $11 billion in 1917, and then back down to $9 billion in 1918.
`
If the economy was gated by rationing/conserving materials, dealing with wearing out of capital stock, and drops in exports and industrial production, then the debt ratio should have gone up or remained at some elevated level.
`
Otherwise, looking at the chart again, I noticed they had a note for 1919, for the German black dot (see the nearby cross symbol), and seem to suggest they are extending out the period covered to 1925. Hence not providing an apples to apples comparison.

This chart shows the countries that remained intact, and that suffered only military losses and the economic drain of the war. What about Russia, Turkey, Austria-Hungary or Serbia? These countries were completely destroyed by the war. I would be interested in seeing their charts included for comparison.

Interesting questions about the aftermath, disintegration of polities and successor states.
`
The Ottoman Empire got destroyed, but Kemal Ataturk resurrected a republic of Turkey, and was able to get the peace treaty with the allies revised.
`
So with Turkey there is a somewhat direct line between the Ottoman Empire and the successor state of Turkey. However, the Arab lands were lost, and of course there was considerable devastation of communities in Asia Minor/Caucuses, with the Armenians during the war, and with the Greek communities afterwards (with the population transfers).
`
As for the Serbs, although they got wrecked by the war, they did managed to get hold of Bosnia and Croatia and Slovenia, etc.…so bit of a direct line between Serbia and the subsequent Kingdom of SErbs, Croats, and Slovenes

Britain was on the winning side but, like in the Napoleonic wars, paid the price of a huge debt increase. This happened again during the WW II.

The USA was the big winner in these two world wars.
The American pro-French neutrality during the Napoleonic wars led to the victorious Second War of Independence against Britain and to the acquisition of Louisiana from France.

A big influence on Napoleon selling Louisiana was the costly effort to repress the slave revolt in Haiti and restore the status quo.
`
Basically Napoleon failed there due to disease, strong resistance and political ineptitude. Like not wise to try to reinstitute slavery, or start locking up/putting away key leaders there.
`
So in many ways, the US directly got the Louisiana purchase from a sideshow, from the consequences of Haitian resistance, but of course the influence of the Napoleonic wars was felt (happened during a pause in fighting, with the peace of Amiens, but Napoleon still needed money for future hostilities).

Surprised to see, how in less than half a decade, everything German has become zeitgeisty. Britain which considers that it has been "overrun" by immigrants, looks up to Germany for keeping their country (specifically power corridor) extremely homogeneous.

Germany ALMOST won the war as it was (1914 and then knocking Russia out of the war in a mix of military and covert ops brilliance) and then almost breaking through to Paris in 1918. And it seems they mismanaged their economy astonishingly. One wonders if a more debt-incurring fiscal policy to get higher production would have given the Kaiser final victory in the west (it might not have been feasible given that Germany's overseas trade was blocked out. Maybe the "true" key to Germany's defeat in both wars..)

Some financial historians believe that the Entente powers were the ones that mismanaged their economies. They wonder how Germany could have come so close to winning the war given the overwhelming economic advantage of the Entente powers. The Entente outspent the Germany and its allies many times over.

Germany came "close" to Paris largely due to Joffre's initial mistake in pursuing the offensive Plan XVII in the Lorraine region and not paying sufficient attention to what was going on in Belgium.
`
To Joffre's credit, he carried out an amazing turnabout, in redeploying forces to the Marne region.
`
Otherwise the German plan was hamfisted, and amazing they got as far as they did. Stuff of debate, but basically there were not enough troops to execute Schlieffen's plan.

'almost won' is still lost. I also think that economy was not the only factor albeit if one believes reports there was hunger in Germany up till the end of the war.
It seems that the history of last great offensive German army tried and failed to turn into won war was not such a big success after all. They did not manage to break the front only to move it so far away from own supply lines that their units had to live off of what they won from withdrawing French and British units. They also had enough supplies only for a number of days so not breaking the front and having decisive victory was the last straw.
All this is probably irrelevant anyway - they had to cope with fresh units from US Army which was a game changer.
You cannot analyze this in a post that is too big a subject, I am also not an expert on that but it seems to me that the result of the war was sealed already before the great offensive and only great incompetence and lack of spirit from Entente could have saved them. Not that it would not be possible still it did not happen and Germany had to pay horrendous reparations and give away big chunks of its territory all around.

As for article - only country that reached the end of fighting with smaller debt was Germany? That would justify another article on the subject actually.

"Only country that reached the end of fighting with smaller debt was Germany? "

I questioned that chart too. I noticed they had a note for that dot for Germany for 1919, indicating they were going out to 1925. So, not an apples to apples comparison. Still doubt that Germany had zero debt in 1925, but that is another subject.

Had Eastern Europe not been behind Iron curtains, during German Wirtschaftswunder, Germany would have been as homogeneous as Hungary. And Germany was never a "liberal" heaven. Present day Germany is known for it's "Germany for Germans" political character under more benign garb of Conservative politics.

Clauswitz in the 1820s believed that the German nation was too liberal, educated and peaceloving to be truly warlike, as opposed to the French who were a naturally martial nation. How stereotypes have changed.

Do you speak German? Do you know Germany? Have you travelled extensively through it, worked there, etc.?

Your comment on contemporary German politics is superficial at best; it also doesn't make a point.

Your claims about Germany's past are simply erroneous. Its thousands of duchies, kingdoms, principalities and princedoms formed - on the whole - a central European haven for the dispossessed and exiled from both East (Jews, Poles, etc.) and West (Huguenots, etc.) throughout the early modern period. Naturally, 18th century concepts of liberalism may not match present day ones, but in its historical and geographical context, the area that became Germany was exactly that: a haven.

- Germany provided asylum to "Jews". And what happened thereafter is history.
- Poles were mostly a recent arrival. And they share a strong friction with Germans (much more than French or British)
- Huguenots had strong religious kinship with Protestant North Germany.
None of your claims exemplify a "liberal" Germany.

Cut to the present World -
- Germany has lowest share of visible minorities in Western World.
- Bewerbungsfoto is widely used for labour market "screening".
- There are three tiered school system in order to segregate Upper class Germans into Gymnasiums (Govt funded), whereas the lesser mortals attend "Hauptschule".Who needs elite Eton style private school ?
- Keeping higher education system non-ranked, Germany has very cleverly prevented brain drain immigrants from Asia /India etc. Creating a merit fog-screen, prevent "auslanders" from treading into position of power using meritocracy. Pure Institutional racism under garb of "gleichheit".

Dear E-Pen, socialism with ethnic criteria attached is called National Socialism.

I don't have the time or inclination to go line by line through every thing you have written so will confine myself to your comments on German education.

Their system essentially mirrors that which used to hold sway in the UK - grammars and secondary moderns - minus (in my extensive experience) any of the class associations that have always made British education so tricky. I know people who attended Gymnasiums and Hochschulen/Hauptschulen; the former is absolutely not limited to "upper class Germans" any more than grammars were reserved for upper class Brits, whereas no one I know has ever expressed any sense of disappointment or resentment for having been channelled through the latter.

I'm not sure whether you're merely operating with only a little information (always a dangerous thing) or whether you are simply prejudiced and determined to view Germany and its people in a negative light, with the rather partial results displayed here.

Kindly do not bring any comparison with UK, because you will not reach the level of equality in British society in next 50 years. German Corporate World has far lower representation of ethnic minorities, not only compared to overall society, but compared to Universities and Fachhochschule. Photo on CV is considered to be mandatory (that means recruiters are not colour blind), but providing Statistics of ethnic disctibution at Corporate level is surprisingly absent. This is abetted by lack of clarity in University ranking, and multi channel higher education system. Do I need to chew the cake for you, even further ?

I am not sure if the Germans are per se against foreigners and if so it is similar to other European countries. But the low self-esteem of Germans when it comes to patriotism pushes them sometimes over the limit. In other words the balance is missing. In France or the UK you know who is right and who is left. In Germany you can’t tell. Even from the left you can here rude racist comments on the other side the former president Mr. Wulf an assured conservative claimed that Islam is a part of Germany’s society

That with photo is certainly true. Generally I would think that this has more to do with German obsession with papers and certificates than with race but I may be mistaken.

As for race and some such - German history was so painful to them and the school system and public TV runs constant education campaigns on times with nazis that open racism is less visible than in any other country I have lived in in Northern and especially Central Europe. Maybe not very surprisingly the minorities in Germany are the the source of open, often very aggressive criticizm of own and other diasporas.

No, it is not an obsession with papers. It is a conscious design aimed at systemic / institutional discrimination. Germany is lot more tightly controlled than almost all other Western Nations, marked by strong top-down administration. However, labour market is crudely laissez-faire. Asking for information on racial background (photo) but refusing to categorically identify race, failing to produce macro-level Statistics--> coincidence !! NOT.